No Subject

[Questioner]

I agree, Orwells' target for criticism in 1984 was not communism, it was totalitarism... and there's plenty of that right here, so Oceania cut easily be the US as well as Rusia. ¿You feel a stopcrime coming out? Hold it for just one second... <br><br>1-War -permanent war- against an enemy who wouldn't really invade you (the Cold War, the so-called "War on terrorism") is employed often here. We have already locked targets on Syria and North Corea...<br><br>2-Turn your TV on ¿How many examples of doublethink can you see in merely 90 minutes? ("There was a rally aganist the war against Iraq in practically every major city on Earth -even in the US- but that's just a minor disgrunted extremist group" 2+2= 5) Speaking of TVs ¿How many do you have in your house? ¿How about PCs?<br><br>3-Forgeiners were inmediate enemies for the citizens of Oceania. Even people with funny clothes were seen as "not from here" (Parson's own kids turned in a man because "his shoes were different"). I wonder if a bearded man with a turbant could walk unmolested down the street (any US street with people in it) for more than an hour...<br><br>All right, i'm done. You can start the "Two minutes hate" now

[Unregistered]

Well it sounds pretty much like modern USA's foreign policy.

[Unregistered]

Rubbish.

[Tim]

I can see how you would say that Big-Brotherism resembles Stalin-ism (what with the large mustache and everything) but i would have to say it was more in tune with Hitler's Facism. The Facism shown in Italy is completely different, and the two should not be confused. We have the peace through war ideal, which was apparent in Nazi Germany- to obtain peace there must be war. The idea that one country should domminate, and although the 3 governments agree on this constant warfare, we must remember that governments often lie.<br> We have the perversion of privacies, as shown with Hitler's regime, adn the fact that the Party demanded not only blind loyalty, but also unquestionable love. Stalin didn't demmad love, just obedience. The secret police concentrated on how people thought and felt about Hitler, not only what they said and did.<br> I do however realise that Hitler should have grown a larger mustache.<br> Thankyou for hearing me out,<br> Tim

[Unregistered]

Which college did you attend?

[Unregistered]

Your logic may be sane, but you missed an important lesson in the story. Individualism and self-motivation cannot be squashed. In the end, it will be these qualtities (those we hold most dear) that causes communism to fail, every time.

[Orwell Scholar]

I hope I don't seem off topic, but I disagree somewhat.<br><br>I think it's a little more complicated than just saying Stalinism or Leninism is just distorted communism, and the Big brotherism exhibited under these regimes should not be confused with communism; that Big brotherism is somehow separate from communism. The fact is, surveillance apparatuses are necessary for the operation of any politico-social-economic system; the more zealous the leadership is in implementing these ideas, the more officious Big brotherism will become in the daily lives of citizens. In fact, the more surreptitious these surveillance mechanisms become only illustrates how obtrusive they are, and how insecure the state is about maintaining its hold on power. <br><br>Arguing over whether Leninism, Stalinism, Marxism (or even Mauism) is not true communism is interesting, but overlooks the fact that communism exists only as a perfect system in theory, just as western systems of democracy and capitalism exist only as distortions of "true" capitalism extolled by such figures as Adam Smith or Milton Friedman (or the democratic system extolled by the Founding fathers of the US). But we tend to overlook this. Both economic models have shown a lot of shortcomings and failures in maximising social benefit, but big brotherism has played a prominent role in administering all communist and capitalist systems in pursuit of the social ideals claimed by both systems. <br><br>It has seemed to be more evident in the implementation of communist systems, because of the very radical system of economic distribution/redistribution that is at the root of the theory. It requires direct intervention by a collectively controlled governing body, to ensure individual citizens' own personal wealth and benefit levels do not unfairly surpass that of another. Communism requires big brotherism because it would be human nature to think individualistically, and act in a manner that will create a wealth advantage over another. Once this takes root, the wealth advantage builds on itself and reaches a point where it will develop a strucural inequality in the social economic arrangement, and this indirectly curtails the opportunities of others. Therefore, communism requires constant monitoring and feedback of information in the body politik to ensure this does not happen, and to detect political dissent among those who encourage you to accumulate as much individual wealth as you can to deprive your neighbour of a minimum economic opportunity they have a right to. <br><br>Given the practical necessity of comparing social conditions to ensure everyone has equal condition under communism, I find it hard to believe that even "true" communism (whatever that is, perhaps that extolled by Marx?), would not use big brotherism to ensure the state apparatus enforces these social and economic standards of equality. <br><br>Look at it this way, big brotherism in a capitalist democratic system is being employed for similar reasons; to ensure that some people are not acting so individualistically, that their behaviour or activities impinge upon the rights, freedoms, and opportunities of others. But that is limited to issues of crime and national security. Now of course, big brotherism also plays a growing part of the capitalist system to use your information to exploit new markets <br><br>The closest western society ever came to a planned economy was during WWII, where a war planning board controlled resource allocation and set guidelines for individual consumption. This was rigidly enforced, and there was a large surveillance system to enforce this, not to mention neighbours were encouraged to inform on each other if they suspected hoarding going on. There is no doubt that communism, even in its mild form as displayed by the war planning board, is synonymous with encouraging big brotherism. <br><br>The parallel is that in Orwell's vision, surveillance helped maintain power of a political system that used constant war to legitimate consistent economic deprivation (but equality of deprivation) among a starving public. The ruling elite (inner party) enjoyed marginally more wealth, but their true source of wealth was immaterial, and came through the intoxication of absolute power. Communism as practised in history seems to show a similar rationale, and that is the reality of implementing a theory. Likewise, capitalism and democracy shows a similar fascination with power, but now add the unfair accumulation of wealth, and the freedom to dispose of it how ever one sees fit. That's scary too, but is also the reality of implementing a theory.<br><br>The more I think of big brotherism, the more I see it as being politically neutral, and more the tool of political and economic zealots who want you to think and believe the way they see it, because they're in control and it will benefit them if you do. This goes for communist leaders, corporations, capitalists, democratically elected politicians, and Homeland Security minions. <br>

[Ernest H. W.]

You're absolutely right. Communism only works until people can fend for themselves. So staying at war constantly is the perfect dictatorial tool to keep control...

[Unregistered]

Finally someone occupied himself with Russian history and understood that George Orwells book wasn't agianst communism but against dictatorship. If it were against communism it wouldn't be against Hittler. And Hittler was one of the worst dictatorships...

[Unregistered]

Big-Brotherism is basically totalitarianism to the worst extent, definitely not communism. Communism wasn't even meant to be all evil. Its theory supported decent fundamentals, although it screwed up big time. Social class was simply meant to be. It's human nature that makes it (wealth helps too), and communism tried to make everyone equal. That's about like sticking your head into an alligator's mouth that you're keeping open with weak arms (see Joe Dirt on that).

[sadlo]

i dont think anybody could ever think bigBrother-ism equals communism.<br>

[Cons]

It is depressing that so many people confuse communism for stalinism. They are very very different. Stalinism was but a perversion of communism, and actually had the opposite affect to communism.<br><br>If communism as a theory or philosophy is workable or not is a huge debate, and I do not profess to know if it is possible. However, in that debate, communism is equated with stalinism, thus the debate is automatically won in favour of "it cannot work".<br><br>The US is currently sliding into fascism. It is both sad and scary at the same time. <br><br>But one thing i am sure of, is that the masses will always be able to rise up against "big brother", however, considering how stupid the general population has already become, it may take a long long time.....<br><br>

[Allan]

Is Communism the same thing as Bigbrother-ism?<br><br>The frank answer is no.<br><br>Sadly, I have noticed many people (even those who posted on this board) believe that communism is the same thing as Bigbrother-ism.<br><br>If you have paid enough attention to Emmanuel Goldstein's essay on "War is Peace" (chapter 3 of Goldstien's book) you would have noticed that the constant warfare is support by the government of the 3 powers because without constant warfare a hierarchical society would cease to exist! Stalinism and perhaps even Leninism is not true communism, but a distorted version of communism, Stalinism, one can honestly say, is something that resmbles Bigbrother-ism. The constant warfare, as explained by Goldstein, is to prevent the build up of WEALTH. If WEALTH was evenly distrubuted, then POWER would be impossible to remain to a small privileged elite, therefore in order to have power, warfare is needed to take away wealth from the people and spent on military purposes. Therefore, one would be utterly mistaken to think of communism (the word commune as base) as the same thing as Bigbrother-ism.